Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31127153›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

A core genome approach that enables prospective and dynamic monitoring of infectious outbreaks.

Helen van Aggelen, Raivo Kolde, Hareesh Chamarthi, Joshua Loving, Yu Fan, John T Fallon, Weihua Huang, Guiqing Wang, Mary M Fortunato-Habib, Juan J Carmona and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. WGS-Based Lineage and Antimicrobial Resistance Pattern ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  7. Comparative Genome Analysis of 33Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  8. Investigating Major RecurringFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Helen van AggelenPhilips Research North America (PRNA), Cambridge, MA, USA. helen.van.aggelen@philips.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4934-0300
Raivo KoldePhilips Research North America (PRNA), Cambridge, MA, USA.
Hareesh ChamarthiPhilips Research North America (PRNA), Cambridge, MA, USA.
Joshua LovingPhilips Research North America (PRNA), Cambridge, MA, USA.
Yu FanPhilips Research North America (PRNA), Cambridge, MA, USA.
John T FallonDepartment of Pathology, New York Medical College (NYMC), Valhalla, New York, USA.
Weihua HuangDepartment of Pathology, New York Medical College (NYMC), Valhalla, New York, USA.
Guiqing WangDepartment of Pathology and Clinical Laboratories, Westchester Medical Center (WMC), Valhalla, New York, USA.
Mary M Fortunato-HabibPhilips Healthcare, Genomics for Infectious Disease (G4ID) Unit, Patient Care Analytics (PCA), Cambridge, MA, USA.
Juan J CarmonaPhilips Healthcare, Genomics for Infectious Disease (G4ID) Unit, Patient Care Analytics (PCA), Cambridge, MA, USA.
Brian D GrossPhilips Healthcare, Genomics for Infectious Disease (G4ID) Unit, Patient Care Analytics (PCA), Cambridge, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9830-5459

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whole-genome sequencing is increasingly adopted in clinical settings to identify pathogen transmissions, though largely as a retrospective tool. Prospective monitoring, in which samples are continuously added and compared to previous samples, can generate more actionable information. To enable prospective pathogen comparison, genomic relatedness metrics based on single-nucleotide differences must be consistent across time, efficient to compute and reliable for a large variety of samples. The choice of genomic regions to compare, i.e., the core genome, is critical to obtain a good metric. We propose a novel core genome method that selects conserved sequences in the reference genome by comparing its k-mer content to that of publicly available genome assemblies. The conserved-sequence genome is sample set-independent, which enables prospective pathogen monitoring. Based on clinical data sets of 3436 S. aureus, 1362 K. pneumoniae and 348 E. faecium samples, ROC curves demonstrate that the conserved-sequence genome disambiguates same-patient samples better than a core genome consisting of conserved genes. The conserved-sequence genome confirms outbreak samples with high sensitivity: in a set of 2335 S. aureus samples, it correctly identifies 44 out of 44 known outbreak samples, whereas the conserved-gene method confirms 38 known outbreak samples.

Indexed as

Genome, BacterialBacteriaBacterial InfectionsCommunicable DiseasesDisease OutbreaksEnterococcus faeciumGenomicsHumansKlebsiella pneumoniaeMolecular EpidemiologyStaphylococcus aureusWhole Genome Sequencing

Identifiers

PMID31127153
PMCPMC6534532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.